people who are smart enough to grasp that and take themselves out of this and look from the outside. i didn't and say, well, did the did the prosecution prove their case and not holding to some unrealistic burden? and you want those jurors who also are going to not concerned with the lawyer here who's a jurors, not to impose their beliefs, but follow what the judge says, an understand that there's going to be a witness here, for example, michael cohen, but not just michael cohen, who is admitted to lying, who has been convicted of crime and say, i can still be objective? yes prosecution. i'm going to hold you to the burden, but no criminal defense. i'm not just going to side with you and say because michael cohen, for example, has a criminal record, i can find him credible. so i think they've done a good job into stacy's point. this is a fairly mundane group, at least on the six alternates but they've done a good job to find jurors who appear to be smart enough engineers attorneys, a teacher to follow the law and be above and beyond. but at the same time, they have that a common sense to say, i can understand credibility, i can look at that person and see what they say and then make that assessment